AI and Blockchain give us the opportunity to radically renegotiate all relationships with power - business, government, and money. We can rewrite the social contract from the ground up - literally!
what is the incentive for corporations and rich technocrats to give greater concessions in a post labor society? it seems like as technology advances the power of the masses shrinks so there will be less negotiating power. especially with tools like drones and robots.
I believe many problems are in the world are as a result of, for want of a better term, moral deficiencies, for which technology does not address the root causes.
We do not need more information.
We do need to change economic models drastically.
But the inherent greed of man will ensure that benefits of the new system will be unevenly applied, just as they are now. But there will be bigger losers as well as bigger winners.
I'm not ideologically opposed to using blockchain to solve problems, but isn't real-world enforcement a major problem with tokenization? Even if we move official policy to a blockchain, what stops people from doing back-door dealings?
Also, in the beginning you note that neoliberalism commodifies everything and this is a huge problem - but this is precisely what tokenomics does to an even more radical degree. I could see ways it might play out differently just based on what we make our systems value, but could you expand on how these relate? Is my personhood going to be tokenized?
Thank you for this insightful question—it cuts to the heart of some of the most pressing challenges and critiques of blockchain-based systems. Let me take each part in turn, because they’re both crucial.
First, the issue of enforcement and back-door dealings is a legitimate concern, but it hinges on whether activities occur on-chain or off-chain. Blockchain excels at ensuring transparency and trust for everything it records, but it’s not magic. If people circumvent the blockchain and conduct deals in the shadows, enforcement becomes difficult. That said, it’s important to recognize that the primary problem here isn’t the blockchain itself but how we integrate it into society.
One of the issues with the current Web3 landscape is that many proponents treat blockchain as a self-contained anarchist utopia, separate from existing systems of governance and enforcement. This attitude often leads to problems like rug pulls and scams because there’s no oversight or authority to hold bad actors accountable. For blockchain to fulfill its potential, it cannot exist in isolation—it must be integrated into the broader social, legal, and political fabric. Imagine a world where on-chain decisions about land ownership or contracts are legally binding and enforceable by courts or other authorities. In such a system, off-chain dealings become far riskier and less attractive because they lack the protection, transparency, and legitimacy provided by the blockchain.
In short, blockchain isn’t a replacement for society’s existing structures—it’s a tool to enhance them. Enforcement issues arise when people reject this integration. The goal isn’t to replace all authority but to reimagine and decentralize it, creating systems that are transparent, accountable, and equitable.
Now, to the second part of your question about tokenization and commodification: you’re absolutely right that this is a delicate tension. Neoliberalism’s commodification of everything has been deeply destructive, reducing our identities, relationships, and even dignity to market transactions. On the surface, tokenization might seem to take this even further by literally turning everything into a tradeable asset. But here’s the crucial difference: blockchain allows us to embed ethics and collective will into the market itself.
Under neoliberalism, markets are treated as inherently sacred—what they value, society must accept. Blockchain, on the other hand, allows consensus to take primacy. Through mechanisms like governance tokens, smart contracts, and consensus protocols, we can collectively decide what should and shouldn’t be tokenized or marketable. If a system of tokenomics commodifies something harmful, unfair, or destructive, we—the participants—can change the rules.
This is the philosophical pivot: neoliberalism enshrines market primacy; a blockchain future enshrines collective consensus. Tokenization isn’t inherently good or bad—it’s a tool. The question is, who decides how it’s used? In a properly designed blockchain ecosystem, that power rests with us, the people. We can choose to build systems that don’t just maximize profit but reflect our shared values, ethics, and priorities.
So, no, your personhood shouldn’t be tokenized unless you want it to be. Blockchain doesn’t demand that we turn everything into a market—it lets us build systems where we decide what matters, what’s protected, and what’s off-limits. It’s a way to embed democracy and fairness into systems that previously treated those concepts as afterthoughts.
I thoroughly agree with every single one of your conclusions and concerns in this, David. I'm right in there with you on creating a decentralized version of the local and national government on blockchain all through every aspect of society and having built in "fairness" algorithms that distribute wealth but carefully incentivise innovation and adding value to the community.
Eric Weinstein (I think on his Triggernometry interview) spoke about the only way to design society better is to use algorithms to spread out the costs of what would in capitalism be considered "the destruction of the commons" such as pollution and calculate the costs of it by who it affects, and fine money proportional to how much is costs to fir example, clean up a lake that a corporation dumped chemicals into, by how much money is lost by the fishermen that can no longer fish there and sell their fish. Value lost should be fairly distributed to those who damaged it. Its a simple idea, but that kind of fairness needs to be built into for tokenized structures so it's something to consider.
My main concern is that the corrupt money ties between the military industrial complex and the banks and the intelligence agencies will give leverage to evil Corporations that would lose their current standing as new, better systems are built that spread the power more evenly and fairly throughout society and they may use whatever leverage they have to stop it at any costs, including potentially bioweapon genocides. I mean, in when you see who funds Elizabeth Warren's campaign and what damage her and the Biden administration wrought to cryptocurrency, it seems that they have sniffed out the danger it poses to them and they're moving chess peices.
Thank you for sharing these thoughts—I really appreciate the depth of your engagement with these ideas. You’re absolutely right that fairness and accountability need to be baked into any tokenized system, and it’s encouraging to see more people thinking critically about how we design for those principles. The concerns you raise about resistance from entrenched powers are real, and I agree that the transition to more equitable systems will be a fight. But that’s why conversations like this are so important—because it’s through dialogue that we refine these ideas and strengthen our resolve to push forward. Thanks again for contributing to the conversation!
I have much sympathy for the criticisms of the health insurance industry, however I asked Perplexity what the average profit margin for US heath insurance companies was and it replied 3% - 6%. The overall average for all US companies is 8.54%. It also said the average US, not for profit, private university took in 16% more income per student than it paid out in expenses. I suspect that health insurance is a much more 'unpleasant' and more difficult business than most others.
The Healthcare industry is very multi-faceted and complex. Statistics like that (%profit) don't really serve much useful information into how the industry operates. Relationships between multiple variables and systems, non-linearity, etc. America is strange, and there is no such thing as a free lunch. I recently was reading excerpts from America Against America. A book about a Chinese political scientist and his experiences when he spent some time in America in the 80s. Check out a brief overview of Wikipedia.
I believe right now America is at an inflection point regarding the average person. If bad policies continue to be made, the average middle-class person will be eaten up.
Check this chart out: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-century-price-changes-1997-to-2017/. The chart shows that the cost of essential goods and services like healthcare, education, and housing has skyrocketed, while other non-essential goods like electronics and software have become cheaper. These trends highlight the systemic issues that make life increasingly unaffordable for middle- and working-class Americans.
Here’s a breakdown of some of the nuanced factors behind these challenges in my opinion, I used ChatGPT to help me polish a lot of raw thoughts that I didn't have time to rewrite myself, apologies if it looks like "AI Slop", the content comes from multiple sources and readings, but is wrapped in ChatGPT-Like language, but don't discount it because of that.
1. Healthcare: Supply Constraints and Costs
• Limited Supply of Doctors: The artificial limitation of doctors in the U.S. is one example of a structural problem. The American Medical Association (AMA) and medical boards control the supply of new doctors by restricting medical school admissions and residency slots. This keeps doctors' salaries high but also makes healthcare inaccessible and expensive. Medical school also remains ridiculously expensive, reinforcing a relationship between the necessity for high salaries and the high expenses of pursuing a medical degree. It hints that doctors will be against a possible future increased influx of doctors affecting their wages. The cycle reinforces itself.
• Foreign Doctors: Making it easier for internationally trained doctors to practice in the U.S. could alleviate shortages. However, resistance comes from protecting domestic jobs and concerns over “standardization” of training quality.
• Healthcare as a Business: The healthcare system is not designed to maximize health outcomes but to operate as a profitable industry. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical firms, and hospital networks all contribute to inflated costs.
• Medical Education Costs: Doctors graduate with crushing debt, which justifies high salaries but perpetuates the cycle of high costs. Without systemic reform, these challenges are self-reinforcing. (Repeating myself a bit here, sorry).
2. Credit and Banking Practices
• High Credit Card Interest Rates: With lots of rates exceeding 20%, banks argue this reflects the risk of lending to high-risk individuals. However, these rates can also trap borrowers in cycles of debt, making it harder for them to achieve financial stability. Policies to cap these rates could bring relief but may limit credit access for some.
• Greed vs. Risk Management: There’s a need to strike a balance between sustainable lending practices and preventing predatory behavior.
3. Housing and Urban Planning
• Zoning Laws and NIMBYism(Not In My Backyard-ism): Suburban sprawl and restrictive zoning laws inflate housing costs by limiting supply. The preference for single-family homes over multi-family housing prevents cities from building vertically, which could accommodate more people affordably.
• Bad Urban Design: Dependence on cars due to poor public transit infrastructure adds significant expenses to household budgets. Walkable, transit-oriented cities would save individuals money while boosting local economies.
4. Education and Workforce Mismatch
• Overemphasis on College Degrees: Over the past few decades, societal pressure to attend university has led to a glut of graduates, particularly in fields with limited job prospects. Meanwhile, trade jobs remain understaffed, despite being lucrative and essential.
• Rising Costs of Education: Universities have become businesses, focusing on increasing enrollment and amenities at the expense of affordability. The result is higher tuition fees and a generation saddled with student debt.
• Saturated Job Markets: Fields like computer science have become oversaturated, forcing graduates to pivot to adjacent roles. This dilutes the value of degrees and creates underemployment.
5. Technology and Automation
• AI and Workforce Disruption: The rise of AI and automation is a double-edged sword. While it boosts productivity and enables new innovations, it threatens to automate many jobs, leaving employees to adapt to rapidly changing roles. I like the explanation that David gives, the paradox of automating workers but then workers have no disposable income, and the US GDP is about ~70% based on consumption, this is problematic. No money to buy anything because they were automated out of a job, and whatever money they have is focused on paying debts (mortgages, loans, etc).
• Enhanced Expectations: Employees using AI tools will likely be expected to produce more, adding pressure without necessarily increasing pay. The middle-class risks being squeezed further unless the gains from AI are distributed more equitably.
I personally need to see some hope, right now I am very pessimistic, and I don't want to be, I want to be optimistic, I want to believe we will lower the cost of 1 kWh to $0.01, solar will scale, nuclear will resurge, vertical farming will be optimized, countries like china will escape the massive-usage of coal/gas and lower their polluting, we will clean our environments, define new ways for people to live, etc.
I too suspect that it would be better for them not to be for profit but also suspect that the ill effects of scarcity and cost would still persist - just 3%-6% less. I don't have a solution but to address the problem scarcity of healthcare resources with much improved productivity and innovation.
I'd love to understand better why you think that the transparency of blockchain does away with the evils enabled by secrecy.
It seems to me that it would be easy enough to create a massive volume of transactions that, even if they were totally transparent and easily comprehensible individually or in clumps, could obscure the meaningful transactions from anyone reading the chain.
Add in the idea of complexity via terminology, or even complexity because the subject is legitimately complex, and no amount of transparency is going to help: only an expert would be able to make sense of the blockchain, and only if they had the time, energy, and resources to unpack the volume of it.
AI might be able to reduce the noise and complexity to see meaningful trends in the transaction chains, but somebody with access to more cycle time and more advanced AI models would be able to overwhelm impoverished AI users or less powerful models.
Thank you so much for this thoughtful and well-articulated comment! It’s exactly these kinds of questions and challenges that help refine narratives like this one, forcing us to grapple with the nuances and limitations of the ideas we’re working through. Transparency through blockchain is far from a cure-all, and the points you raise illuminate real and significant challenges.
You’re absolutely right that the sheer volume of transactions—or the deliberate creation of noise—could undermine the practical utility of blockchain transparency. Immutable publicity, while powerful, comes with its own pitfalls. For instance, bad actors could exploit it to bury meaningful transactions in an ocean of insignificant ones, or, conversely, use the permanence of the chain to entrench sensitive information like personal medical data in ways that undermine privacy. Learning to use this technology effectively will require us not only to solve the problems of complexity and noise but also to anticipate entirely new ones.
This is where I see AI as not just helpful but essential. AI excels at processing and interpreting vast amounts of information, automatically identifying patterns, anomalies, and trends that would be impossible for humans to catch. For instance, imagine an AI system trained to flag unusual financial activity or correlations between policy decisions and donations. With the right tools, such systems could help anyone—from journalists to everyday citizens—make sense of blockchain data. That said, AI is only one part of the solution. The design of the blockchain systems themselves is just as critical to overcoming the issues you describe.
One design principle that I think addresses these challenges is something I’d call “deny by default,” borrowed from the world of scientific publishing and peer review. The idea here is that blockchain entries would not be admitted automatically; they would need to pass through a predefined consensus or verification process tailored to the purpose of the blockchain. Just as scientific journals reject papers that fail to meet their standards, blockchain systems could reject transactions or records that don’t meet their own transparency or consensus thresholds.
This approach helps address the noise problem by ensuring that only rigorously validated data enters the chain. Of course, this would mean some blockchains might be incomplete—rejecting real, valuable information—but that’s far better than the alternative: allowing in false positives, which would undermine trust in the system. Different blockchains could implement different levels of scrutiny, creating an ecosystem of decentralized systems that complement one another rather than relying on a single monolithic chain to record all data.
In this decentralized ecosystem, some chains might prioritize transparency and comprehensiveness, while others prioritize speed or exclusivity. This diversity ensures that no one system becomes the sole arbiter of truth and creates redundancy that protects against failure or manipulation.
In short, the future of blockchain isn’t just about transparency but about intelligent systems—AI, deny-by-default principles, and diverse, decentralized networks—working together to maximize the signal and minimize the noise. This kind of layered approach, I believe, is what makes the blockchain-AI partnership so transformative and worth pursuing.
Knowing that social traction is the next step for your recommended framework, I casually joked "Is James Cameron available?" After skimming through X for an hour this morning, chuckling over several potent MEMEs, getting the likely reason for the unexplained air activity over NJ, and 20 other updates, it made me think... There are new ways to get your PLE work to permeate broadly.
#1 a viral platform (X, Spotify, etc.)
#2 a visual format (MEMEs, videos)
I'll casually joke now, "Do you know any game developers?"
This is all coming out in my books. The first one is out, Heavy Silver, and I'm working on a sequel and prequel already. Stories are powerful ;) One step ahead of you. And yes, James Cameron would be good, but I'd prefer Dennis Villeneuve
what is the incentive for corporations and rich technocrats to give greater concessions in a post labor society? it seems like as technology advances the power of the masses shrinks so there will be less negotiating power. especially with tools like drones and robots.
I believe many problems are in the world are as a result of, for want of a better term, moral deficiencies, for which technology does not address the root causes.
We do not need more information.
We do need to change economic models drastically.
But the inherent greed of man will ensure that benefits of the new system will be unevenly applied, just as they are now. But there will be bigger losers as well as bigger winners.
Where can I learn more about high leverage interventions ?
My Systems Thinking YouTube Channel! https://youtu.be/-16Xj1CjnA8?si=NRTA75Xbzuwcu4x_
I'm not ideologically opposed to using blockchain to solve problems, but isn't real-world enforcement a major problem with tokenization? Even if we move official policy to a blockchain, what stops people from doing back-door dealings?
Also, in the beginning you note that neoliberalism commodifies everything and this is a huge problem - but this is precisely what tokenomics does to an even more radical degree. I could see ways it might play out differently just based on what we make our systems value, but could you expand on how these relate? Is my personhood going to be tokenized?
Thank you for this insightful question—it cuts to the heart of some of the most pressing challenges and critiques of blockchain-based systems. Let me take each part in turn, because they’re both crucial.
First, the issue of enforcement and back-door dealings is a legitimate concern, but it hinges on whether activities occur on-chain or off-chain. Blockchain excels at ensuring transparency and trust for everything it records, but it’s not magic. If people circumvent the blockchain and conduct deals in the shadows, enforcement becomes difficult. That said, it’s important to recognize that the primary problem here isn’t the blockchain itself but how we integrate it into society.
One of the issues with the current Web3 landscape is that many proponents treat blockchain as a self-contained anarchist utopia, separate from existing systems of governance and enforcement. This attitude often leads to problems like rug pulls and scams because there’s no oversight or authority to hold bad actors accountable. For blockchain to fulfill its potential, it cannot exist in isolation—it must be integrated into the broader social, legal, and political fabric. Imagine a world where on-chain decisions about land ownership or contracts are legally binding and enforceable by courts or other authorities. In such a system, off-chain dealings become far riskier and less attractive because they lack the protection, transparency, and legitimacy provided by the blockchain.
In short, blockchain isn’t a replacement for society’s existing structures—it’s a tool to enhance them. Enforcement issues arise when people reject this integration. The goal isn’t to replace all authority but to reimagine and decentralize it, creating systems that are transparent, accountable, and equitable.
Now, to the second part of your question about tokenization and commodification: you’re absolutely right that this is a delicate tension. Neoliberalism’s commodification of everything has been deeply destructive, reducing our identities, relationships, and even dignity to market transactions. On the surface, tokenization might seem to take this even further by literally turning everything into a tradeable asset. But here’s the crucial difference: blockchain allows us to embed ethics and collective will into the market itself.
Under neoliberalism, markets are treated as inherently sacred—what they value, society must accept. Blockchain, on the other hand, allows consensus to take primacy. Through mechanisms like governance tokens, smart contracts, and consensus protocols, we can collectively decide what should and shouldn’t be tokenized or marketable. If a system of tokenomics commodifies something harmful, unfair, or destructive, we—the participants—can change the rules.
This is the philosophical pivot: neoliberalism enshrines market primacy; a blockchain future enshrines collective consensus. Tokenization isn’t inherently good or bad—it’s a tool. The question is, who decides how it’s used? In a properly designed blockchain ecosystem, that power rests with us, the people. We can choose to build systems that don’t just maximize profit but reflect our shared values, ethics, and priorities.
So, no, your personhood shouldn’t be tokenized unless you want it to be. Blockchain doesn’t demand that we turn everything into a market—it lets us build systems where we decide what matters, what’s protected, and what’s off-limits. It’s a way to embed democracy and fairness into systems that previously treated those concepts as afterthoughts.
TLDR:
Neoliberalism = market primacy
Blockchain = consensus primacy
I thoroughly agree with every single one of your conclusions and concerns in this, David. I'm right in there with you on creating a decentralized version of the local and national government on blockchain all through every aspect of society and having built in "fairness" algorithms that distribute wealth but carefully incentivise innovation and adding value to the community.
Eric Weinstein (I think on his Triggernometry interview) spoke about the only way to design society better is to use algorithms to spread out the costs of what would in capitalism be considered "the destruction of the commons" such as pollution and calculate the costs of it by who it affects, and fine money proportional to how much is costs to fir example, clean up a lake that a corporation dumped chemicals into, by how much money is lost by the fishermen that can no longer fish there and sell their fish. Value lost should be fairly distributed to those who damaged it. Its a simple idea, but that kind of fairness needs to be built into for tokenized structures so it's something to consider.
My main concern is that the corrupt money ties between the military industrial complex and the banks and the intelligence agencies will give leverage to evil Corporations that would lose their current standing as new, better systems are built that spread the power more evenly and fairly throughout society and they may use whatever leverage they have to stop it at any costs, including potentially bioweapon genocides. I mean, in when you see who funds Elizabeth Warren's campaign and what damage her and the Biden administration wrought to cryptocurrency, it seems that they have sniffed out the danger it poses to them and they're moving chess peices.
Thank you for sharing these thoughts—I really appreciate the depth of your engagement with these ideas. You’re absolutely right that fairness and accountability need to be baked into any tokenized system, and it’s encouraging to see more people thinking critically about how we design for those principles. The concerns you raise about resistance from entrenched powers are real, and I agree that the transition to more equitable systems will be a fight. But that’s why conversations like this are so important—because it’s through dialogue that we refine these ideas and strengthen our resolve to push forward. Thanks again for contributing to the conversation!
I have much sympathy for the criticisms of the health insurance industry, however I asked Perplexity what the average profit margin for US heath insurance companies was and it replied 3% - 6%. The overall average for all US companies is 8.54%. It also said the average US, not for profit, private university took in 16% more income per student than it paid out in expenses. I suspect that health insurance is a much more 'unpleasant' and more difficult business than most others.
The Healthcare industry is very multi-faceted and complex. Statistics like that (%profit) don't really serve much useful information into how the industry operates. Relationships between multiple variables and systems, non-linearity, etc. America is strange, and there is no such thing as a free lunch. I recently was reading excerpts from America Against America. A book about a Chinese political scientist and his experiences when he spent some time in America in the 80s. Check out a brief overview of Wikipedia.
I believe right now America is at an inflection point regarding the average person. If bad policies continue to be made, the average middle-class person will be eaten up.
Check this chart out: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-century-price-changes-1997-to-2017/. The chart shows that the cost of essential goods and services like healthcare, education, and housing has skyrocketed, while other non-essential goods like electronics and software have become cheaper. These trends highlight the systemic issues that make life increasingly unaffordable for middle- and working-class Americans.
Here’s a breakdown of some of the nuanced factors behind these challenges in my opinion, I used ChatGPT to help me polish a lot of raw thoughts that I didn't have time to rewrite myself, apologies if it looks like "AI Slop", the content comes from multiple sources and readings, but is wrapped in ChatGPT-Like language, but don't discount it because of that.
1. Healthcare: Supply Constraints and Costs
• Limited Supply of Doctors: The artificial limitation of doctors in the U.S. is one example of a structural problem. The American Medical Association (AMA) and medical boards control the supply of new doctors by restricting medical school admissions and residency slots. This keeps doctors' salaries high but also makes healthcare inaccessible and expensive. Medical school also remains ridiculously expensive, reinforcing a relationship between the necessity for high salaries and the high expenses of pursuing a medical degree. It hints that doctors will be against a possible future increased influx of doctors affecting their wages. The cycle reinforces itself.
• Foreign Doctors: Making it easier for internationally trained doctors to practice in the U.S. could alleviate shortages. However, resistance comes from protecting domestic jobs and concerns over “standardization” of training quality.
• Healthcare as a Business: The healthcare system is not designed to maximize health outcomes but to operate as a profitable industry. Insurance companies, pharmaceutical firms, and hospital networks all contribute to inflated costs.
• Medical Education Costs: Doctors graduate with crushing debt, which justifies high salaries but perpetuates the cycle of high costs. Without systemic reform, these challenges are self-reinforcing. (Repeating myself a bit here, sorry).
2. Credit and Banking Practices
• High Credit Card Interest Rates: With lots of rates exceeding 20%, banks argue this reflects the risk of lending to high-risk individuals. However, these rates can also trap borrowers in cycles of debt, making it harder for them to achieve financial stability. Policies to cap these rates could bring relief but may limit credit access for some.
• Greed vs. Risk Management: There’s a need to strike a balance between sustainable lending practices and preventing predatory behavior.
3. Housing and Urban Planning
• Zoning Laws and NIMBYism(Not In My Backyard-ism): Suburban sprawl and restrictive zoning laws inflate housing costs by limiting supply. The preference for single-family homes over multi-family housing prevents cities from building vertically, which could accommodate more people affordably.
• Bad Urban Design: Dependence on cars due to poor public transit infrastructure adds significant expenses to household budgets. Walkable, transit-oriented cities would save individuals money while boosting local economies.
4. Education and Workforce Mismatch
• Overemphasis on College Degrees: Over the past few decades, societal pressure to attend university has led to a glut of graduates, particularly in fields with limited job prospects. Meanwhile, trade jobs remain understaffed, despite being lucrative and essential.
• Rising Costs of Education: Universities have become businesses, focusing on increasing enrollment and amenities at the expense of affordability. The result is higher tuition fees and a generation saddled with student debt.
• Saturated Job Markets: Fields like computer science have become oversaturated, forcing graduates to pivot to adjacent roles. This dilutes the value of degrees and creates underemployment.
5. Technology and Automation
• AI and Workforce Disruption: The rise of AI and automation is a double-edged sword. While it boosts productivity and enables new innovations, it threatens to automate many jobs, leaving employees to adapt to rapidly changing roles. I like the explanation that David gives, the paradox of automating workers but then workers have no disposable income, and the US GDP is about ~70% based on consumption, this is problematic. No money to buy anything because they were automated out of a job, and whatever money they have is focused on paying debts (mortgages, loans, etc).
• Enhanced Expectations: Employees using AI tools will likely be expected to produce more, adding pressure without necessarily increasing pay. The middle-class risks being squeezed further unless the gains from AI are distributed more equitably.
I personally need to see some hope, right now I am very pessimistic, and I don't want to be, I want to be optimistic, I want to believe we will lower the cost of 1 kWh to $0.01, solar will scale, nuclear will resurge, vertical farming will be optimized, countries like china will escape the massive-usage of coal/gas and lower their polluting, we will clean our environments, define new ways for people to live, etc.
Weird, right? It's almost as if healthcare shouldn't be a for-profit business.
I too suspect that it would be better for them not to be for profit but also suspect that the ill effects of scarcity and cost would still persist - just 3%-6% less. I don't have a solution but to address the problem scarcity of healthcare resources with much improved productivity and innovation.
I'd love to understand better why you think that the transparency of blockchain does away with the evils enabled by secrecy.
It seems to me that it would be easy enough to create a massive volume of transactions that, even if they were totally transparent and easily comprehensible individually or in clumps, could obscure the meaningful transactions from anyone reading the chain.
Add in the idea of complexity via terminology, or even complexity because the subject is legitimately complex, and no amount of transparency is going to help: only an expert would be able to make sense of the blockchain, and only if they had the time, energy, and resources to unpack the volume of it.
AI might be able to reduce the noise and complexity to see meaningful trends in the transaction chains, but somebody with access to more cycle time and more advanced AI models would be able to overwhelm impoverished AI users or less powerful models.
Thank you so much for this thoughtful and well-articulated comment! It’s exactly these kinds of questions and challenges that help refine narratives like this one, forcing us to grapple with the nuances and limitations of the ideas we’re working through. Transparency through blockchain is far from a cure-all, and the points you raise illuminate real and significant challenges.
You’re absolutely right that the sheer volume of transactions—or the deliberate creation of noise—could undermine the practical utility of blockchain transparency. Immutable publicity, while powerful, comes with its own pitfalls. For instance, bad actors could exploit it to bury meaningful transactions in an ocean of insignificant ones, or, conversely, use the permanence of the chain to entrench sensitive information like personal medical data in ways that undermine privacy. Learning to use this technology effectively will require us not only to solve the problems of complexity and noise but also to anticipate entirely new ones.
This is where I see AI as not just helpful but essential. AI excels at processing and interpreting vast amounts of information, automatically identifying patterns, anomalies, and trends that would be impossible for humans to catch. For instance, imagine an AI system trained to flag unusual financial activity or correlations between policy decisions and donations. With the right tools, such systems could help anyone—from journalists to everyday citizens—make sense of blockchain data. That said, AI is only one part of the solution. The design of the blockchain systems themselves is just as critical to overcoming the issues you describe.
One design principle that I think addresses these challenges is something I’d call “deny by default,” borrowed from the world of scientific publishing and peer review. The idea here is that blockchain entries would not be admitted automatically; they would need to pass through a predefined consensus or verification process tailored to the purpose of the blockchain. Just as scientific journals reject papers that fail to meet their standards, blockchain systems could reject transactions or records that don’t meet their own transparency or consensus thresholds.
This approach helps address the noise problem by ensuring that only rigorously validated data enters the chain. Of course, this would mean some blockchains might be incomplete—rejecting real, valuable information—but that’s far better than the alternative: allowing in false positives, which would undermine trust in the system. Different blockchains could implement different levels of scrutiny, creating an ecosystem of decentralized systems that complement one another rather than relying on a single monolithic chain to record all data.
In this decentralized ecosystem, some chains might prioritize transparency and comprehensiveness, while others prioritize speed or exclusivity. This diversity ensures that no one system becomes the sole arbiter of truth and creates redundancy that protects against failure or manipulation.
In short, the future of blockchain isn’t just about transparency but about intelligent systems—AI, deny-by-default principles, and diverse, decentralized networks—working together to maximize the signal and minimize the noise. This kind of layered approach, I believe, is what makes the blockchain-AI partnership so transformative and worth pursuing.
Banger. KEEP. IT. UP.
Knowing that social traction is the next step for your recommended framework, I casually joked "Is James Cameron available?" After skimming through X for an hour this morning, chuckling over several potent MEMEs, getting the likely reason for the unexplained air activity over NJ, and 20 other updates, it made me think... There are new ways to get your PLE work to permeate broadly.
#1 a viral platform (X, Spotify, etc.)
#2 a visual format (MEMEs, videos)
I'll casually joke now, "Do you know any game developers?"
PLE is top priority and needs global reach.
This is all coming out in my books. The first one is out, Heavy Silver, and I'm working on a sequel and prequel already. Stories are powerful ;) One step ahead of you. And yes, James Cameron would be good, but I'd prefer Dennis Villeneuve